boston bruins are. >> jon: beloved producer is prosecute boston that is why you get these stories, okay? >> jenna: it was well deserved. >> jon: thanks for joining us. >> jenna: america live starts right now. >> megyn: fox news alert. what a busy afternoon we have for you. the convergence of three political controversies now strange the credibility of our very government. welcome, i'm megyn kelly. a look at the white house where jay carney is expected to brief reporters at any moment. if you didn't see friday afternoon his last briefing. you may be in for a shoshg when you see a different looking and sounding press corps taking on the white house in the wake of these three major stories. we expect him to take questions on those stories including number one, that the irs has now admitted that it inappropriately

targeted groups with conservative, political leanings. we are now hearing that the acting irs commissioner actually knew about this for a year. soon he will have to answer on to a growing list of congressional committees that are investigating the matter. how did the acting head know about it for a year and president obama tells us yesterday he learned about all of this from a news report on friday? like the rest of us? how can that be? this comes less than 24 hours that from reports that the doj grabbed months of phone records from the associated press is what is being called an unprecedented intrusion into the freedom of the press. eric holder department's taking records from multiple ap offices. we believe they were subpoenaed and obtained but without any noticed to the ap. getting records from nearly 2 dozen phone lines and countless

journalists their home phones, their cellphones, the records of everyone they called because eric holder or his deputies wanted to know with whom they were speaking in the wake of an ap report a year ago. mr. holder is holding a news conference on an unrelated topic where he may take questions on this. we are monitoring and bring you any news as it is made. in the meantime, we are getting word this hour that rnc chair reince priebus is calling for his resignation. when we get him on the camera we'll bring it to you. benghazi, hillary clinton to answer questions about her response to the terror attack that killed four americans under subpoena if necessary in the wake of what we saw last week which was whistleblower

testimony in someone pointing the finger at her what caused the terror attack and reports by the weekly standard and abc news suggesting that her state department was heavily, heavily involved in editing those talking points. that is the state department later denied having ever touched. chris editor of foxnews.com live. lou dobbs suggested that we're heading a constitutional crisis in this country right now. i don't know if it is that big. you and i have the same approach. you have to have a healthy sense of humor when you cover them but it's getting beyond the point of laughing about it. we have reporters without any notice to the news organization. the irs harassing and intimidating, not just conservative leaning groups but

tax exempt groups they said they would like limited government, not red flag them in the eyes of the irs. now, we have the white house press secretary and president telling that no changes were made to these talking points. not to believe our lying eyes and we have the documents and reports right in front of us to show how extensive the reports were and the suggestions that was in an effort to cover up the white house and state department failures in protecting americans in benghazi on 9/11 of last year. give me the big picture perspective? >> big picture perspective last one is most problematic for the president. the thing that he said was not true about benghazi whether he claimed that he had called it a terrorist attack. he hadn't done that until yesterday. so now you have to try to unwind something that is never good, when you are denying the

presence have a cover-up to mislead the press that is accusing you of misleading in the past. that keeps that story going. these other two things going, boy, what a heartbreaker for democrats when you think about not just the irs deal which is going to go on and oh and be a source of endless pain for this administration until they get the house cleaned. a bunch of people will have to be fired. bunch of changes have to be made. on the thing with the press, with the reporters, you just imagine if this had been under the watch of john ashcroft or alberto gonzalez, the screaming would be louder. any time you have any idea of an overbroad inquiry into the central arguably most important means for disseminate go news this is serious.

>> megyn: the wires, we all use them and rely on them for news regulatory reporting for television stations to cover. it's basically been laid bare with holderer's doj. imagine that you are looking at your cellphone records, your home phone records without you even knowing it and you year notice, we did it. too bad. >> reporter: i talked to some democrats and some republicans today they said this is okay because they are trying to stop the leaks. guess what we need? leaks. we have to know what they are doing because they don't tell us. as the scandals evidenced, they don't tell us what they don't want us to know. so we rely on leaks telling us

about just being a whistleblower just wanting the truth to come out to share with us things that are not coming out through the official channels. a broad inquest that takes in like the justice department. you are talking about 20 phone lines and ap's lawyers and all this stuff. it looks like it's designed to have a chilling effect on people inside the government that might want to reach out and blow the whistle. >> megyn: how would you like it if you were one of the sources on ap reporting during that time frame and some lawmaker on capitol hill or someone in administration, wouldn't you be worried that your number would be found as well? it does have a chilling effect. the bigger picture is it any coincidence because the white house came out yesterday and we didn't know anything about the department of justice and the spying on the ap.

we didn't know anything about the irs targeting conservative groups. of course, there is hillary clinton, i didn't know anything about the requests for additional security in benghazi libya. nothing. i had no idea. on the first two matters, how long do we buy it's completely innocent even though the victims in those two cases happened to be opponents or adversaries of the administration in some way. in other words,, the press, and conservative groups hold on, jay carney and associated press is the first question. >> conflict of issues, benghazi talking points. irs political groups and department review of journalists phone records. in every instance either you or the president have placed the burden of responsibility some places on benghazi talking points. it's been political motivations. on the hill, on the irs it's

been the bureaucrats. on the justice department issue yesterday in your statement, you said those matters regarding the justice department. it is the present administration. so, i wonder doesn't responsibility for setting the tone and direction ultimately rest with the president on these matters? >> well, the responsibility to set tone and to focus on the priorities. american people is absolutely the responsibility of the president. you see and hear him do that every day. as he fulfills his duties as president. i think you have to separate these issues. i think if you look at the answers the president gave yesterday in response to questions on the one hand about the clear political circus that benghazi has become, his response to questions about the report of activity by the irs. i think you see something

different. he made clear if t personnel prove to be true, he would find them treajsz and he would expect appropriate action be taken and people be held responsible. he has no tolerance for targeting of specific groups, conservative groups if the reporting is true on this. he would expect action to be taken. this is a matter when it comes to the irs it is under review by the independent inspector general. we have not seen that report. it is our understanding that its release is fairly imminent and once we have it we will assess the next steps. so at this point we have to wait for action by an independent inspector before we can jump to conclusions to what happened, whether there was a deliberate

targeting of groups inappropriately, and if that is case what action should be taken. you can be sure, i would point you to president's response yesterday, what his feelings are about this kind of action if, in fact, took place. on the issue of what is a department of justice investigation, as i understand it, the president is a strong defender of the first amendment. he a firm believer to the press and ability to conduct investigative reporting and assist in free flow of information. he, of course, recognizes the need to investigate alleged criminal activity without undue influence. as i said yesterday in my statement, other than press reports we have no knowledge of any attempt by the justice department to seek phone records of the associated press. we are not involved in the white house in any decisions in

connection with ongoing criminal investigations as those matters are handled appropriately by the justice department independent i understand there are a lot of questions about the reports about doj's actions. from my background, i understand them well. in this situation where the department appears to be conducting a criminal investigation, it would be wholly inappropriate to have answers to those questions. i don't have them. i have to refer out to department of justice. >> go back to the irs issue. the president keeps using the word if these activities had taken place, but there has been an acknowledgement on the irs leadership that these did occur. i wonder why the president used that phrasing in framing it was outrageous? >> those that have spoken about this have greater insight than we do. we have not seen the report.

we have not independently collected information about what transpired. we need the independent inspector general's report before be released before we can make judgment. one person's view and what that individual did is not enough for something to say something concretely happened. what has been said, you know, the actions were inadverted enter or not or constituted something that was specific or not. i think what we have to do responsibly is wait for the inspector general's report to be released. if you look at what the president said yesterday he was very clear if there was deliberate, specific targeting of group groups that would be outrageous and would require action to be taken. >> and that action, would there

be something that the white house could do? >> i think we have to see what the next steps are. obviously, there is significant amount of independence of the irs is obviously as well as the n.i. -- and we have to wait what the i.a. g.assesses. >> it's not clear that the senior tax officials about the extra scrutiny groups of 2011 and during the election it was withheld until after the election. should the white house have been informed earlier? >> my understanding is that when there is a review as there was and is by an inspector general that when the end of that process is nearing and reported is about to be released, a

notification is appropriate and routine. that is what happened several w. prior to that there was no knowledge here at the white house white house. before i make judgments about or anyone else makes judgments about whether the white house should have known more or others in the administration, we have to find out what exactly happened. that, it's important for us to wait for the inspector general's report which hopefully will be imminent. >> do you have any concerning it was withheld? >> we have serious concerns about what has been reported. you saw that reflected in what the president said. it has been reported and we have to make sure the independent review by the inspector general is revealed and we can seas that and if that -- assess that and what motivations there were and whatever actions were taken and then decide what action is

appropriate and who should take it. >> when did the president find out the subpoena for associated press? >> yesterday. >> -- let me be clear. he found out about the news reports yesterday on the road. >> what was his reaction to. did he believe it was over reached? >> he i cannot and he cannot talk about the ongoing criminal actions or actions that inspectors of the department of justice may or may not have taken. it would be wholly inappropriate. if we did commented on it, or if we did have insight into it, you would ask why, is that correct procedure because would it not be. so i can't comment on the specifics of that. i can tell you the president feels strongly that we need the press to be able unat the time terrified in the pursuit of investigative journalism. you saw when he was senator, the

president co-sponsored legislation that with the right of further protections for journal enlists this regard. he is also mindful of the need for secret and classified information to remain secret around classified in order to protect our national security interests. there is a careful balance here that must be attained. i think it's important to look where he comes broadly in regard to issues like this, but we can't comment on specific investigation. >> compared to president nixon, how does he feel about that? >> i don't have a reaction from president obama. people that make those comparisons need to check their history. what we have here was one issue in benghazi. it's so clearly as we are learning more, political side show to politicize a tragedy.

president feels strongly about that. you heard him address that yesterday. on the other issues, these are things we are finding out about and we need to wait appropriately for independent action to be completed before he can in any way take action or comment specifically on it. i think that as the reflection sort of rapid politization of everything that you have that kind of commentary. everything becomes, you know, a huge political issue when, if you look at the facts -- and i think benghazi was instructive in this -- the real issue is that four americans died and we need to do everything we can to find out who did it and finding

out why and taking the steps to ensure that our diplomatic personnel is protected and our facilities is protected so what happened in benghazi doesn't economically in the 21st century that this countryoyed in the 20th. that is what he spends his time on. that and the paramount interests in protecting the national security of the united states. >> you said check our history, rapid commentary, you have to understand how it sounds like the administration might be hiding something. can we take these one at a time. the irs on friday, they gave one version of the story that changed several times since then. can you state plainly if the president believes they are truthful and if he thinks the leadership needs to change? >> i don't understand how that tracks with your first assertion here. we have seen the reports that the president said and if the reports are true, he would consider them -- >> even the irs has acknowledged

some of this happened. so the president and administration could agree? >> i think you heard the president said yesterday, if it turns to be the case. there is a lot of reporting, not all of it compliment ri. >> there was irs personnel. we now learned? >> how could irs personnel be isolated? it could be the entire agency. >> broader problem? >> he is concerned about every report. you can believe he is concerned about that. that is why he looks forward to finding out what the i.g. report says and then decides who needs to take what steps are. instead of rushing to conclusions or perpetrating consequences, before we even know specifically what happened and the whole story, it would be inappropriate for a president to

do. so again, he made clear what his view of this action, if there was specific deliberate targeting of conservative groups or any groups inappropriately, he would be outraged. he finds the suggestions of that to be outrageous. we cannot and should not prejudge the investigation. >> what are the consequences of his outrage? >> how could he possibly say what the consequence will be before we know what the facts are. >> okay. >> shouldn't we let the facts be revealed by this independent inspector general report before we make some conclusive judgments about what actions need to be taken. >> the irs story, you guys are involved with the investigation that could touch the white house and that is a legal violation and its an legal issue that ahead. this involves multiple locations many phones.

is the president concerned about the threat of the investigation, about the breadth and depth that the doj is using to leaks in general which is a priority for this president, more people for leaks than every other president put together? >> jessica, what i can tell you, this president believes strongly in the first amendment and is a strong defender of the first amendment. he believes strongly in the need for the press to be unat the time terrified in hits pursuit of journalism. he believes as president in the need to ensure that classified information is not leaked because it can endanger our national security and endanger american men and women around the world. i cannot and he cannot appropriately commented on specifics of an ongoing congressional investigation that you just raised, criminal

investigation that you raised. >> was he concerned about this is legacy of his attorney general? >> i can't comment on that. i can tell you that the president absolutely believes in the need to this office and co-sponsor of the legislation that would enhance protections for the media and that our behind that effort be ones like that. i can't take it to a specific case that has been reported to the press. we learn from about the press appropriately. if we learned about it any other way, it would be inappropriate. >> calling on it after the case. >> thank you. >> jay, can you say categorically that nobody in the white house and nobody on the president's political team had any knowledge or was involved in any way on the targeting of tea party groups by the irs? >> yes.

>> absolutely? >> we found out about this, counsel was notified about this investigation of this activity, potential activity very broadly just a few weeks ago. beyond that, we learn about everything we know about this from what we see in your report. that is why we have to wait for the inspector general's report before we can assess based on that and what it tells us what we know and about what happened and what didn't and what action should be taken and then decide on what next steps should be taken. again, we'll have to see what the report includes and what else needs to be done to find out if necessary what happened. the reports that true there wasa knowing effort to target specific organizations as reported, conservative

organizations, that would be outrageous in the president's view and there should be consequences. >> you clearly can't comment on the justice department investigation, as principle, as a president approving the idea of prosecutors going through the personnel phone records and work phone records of journalists and ed torsion? >> i appreciate to generalize the question, that goes right to the heart on the specific case. i can tell you the president believes that the press as a rule needs to be -- needs to have an unfettered ability. i can't respond to this in specifics. i am very understanding of the questions on this issue and appreciate the nature of the questions. i think they go to important issues. they go to the fundamental issue of finding a balance, when it

comes to leaks of classified information, of our nation's secrets if you will, between those to protect that information because of the national security implications, on the one hand, and need to allow an unfettered press. this is important balance we have to find. how he views these issues can be seen in the actions and proposals he has made in the past. when it comes to this specific case, i can't get into the details of our view or his view of it. >> last question -- is all of this, all this swirl of controversy and stories affecting the president's ability to pursue an agenda? >> the president is focused on what he believes the american people expect from him and from

their leaders in washington. you have seen that and you will continue to see that in the days and weeks and months ahead. overwhelmingly americans are concerned about continuing the recovery out of the worse recession since the great depression, building on the job creation we have seen, continuing to expand and make more secure the middle-class. taking the necessary steps to invest if in our future so that our economy can grow later. that means bipartisan cooperation on things like investing in infrastructure or innovation, in the innovation hub that he talked about in austin last week. these are the issues he focused on. they include comprehensive immigration reform who he is constantly discussing with leaders of congress. a bipartisan effort that he

believes can and should produce a law that reflects the principles he laid out a long time ago. there is a lot of work to be done. he a focused on that work. >> welcome back. as you know numerous members of congress over the period of a couple years wrote the irs around asked if conservative groups were being targeted. the officials didn't respond. if it turns out the officials did know at the time, conservative groups had been targeted, should those officials be punished? >> the if phrasing is appropriate. if what we are seeing in some of these reports about specific targeting and actions taken by personnel within the irs turns out to be true, people should be held accountable.

what that means in concrete action, we'll have to see based on the information and the facts that are gathered, principally at first by the inspector general. you heard from the president yesterday. you heard the outrage that he conveyed at the reports of this kind of activity. >> potential outrage? >> i don't think you want the president outraged that turned out to not be true. >> part of it is fact. it's not in the if category anymore. >> i agree with that. that was reflected and nature and tone from the president. on the broader issue about getting all the facts, it really is important in our view and the president's view that we let the independent inspector general complete that report, that we assess it when we see it.

we haven't seen it. there have been suggestions that someone leaked out, but we haven't seen it. we don't have assess to it. when we do we will be able to assess it more specifically than we can you do nou. >> one more issue, confluence of issues, if you read some of the articles on this, it almost sounds like there a siege going on. is there a siege mentality back in the west wing right now? >> absolutely not. we are focused the things we can do to help the middle-class. the things we can do to move our economy forward, to help our kids get educated, to work with congress to achieve what will hopefully li be a bipartisan immigration bill that this president can sign into law. working with congress over the last weeks and months to see if we can find common ground on reducing our defendant in a balanced way that will helping

our economy grow and help create more jobs. we are focused on these fundamental issues that the american people sent this president to this office twice now to focus on. i under the -- i under the national inkli nation to bunch some of these things together, there is a distinction here. i think you heard it from the president. the ongoing obsession, i'm quoting somebody describing speaker. house, the ongoing obsession with talking points and benghazi and attempts to politicize that constitute a side show that is driven purely by or largely by political interests and not the interests of finding out exactly what happened and who was responsible and taking the steps to ensure that our facilities

are secure. that is what the president is focused on. you have seen in the report from the accountability review board that was o admiral mullen and ambassador pickering. it's what you a have seen in the president's insistence that the investigation led by the f.b.i. into finding out who was responsible for the deaths of four americans reach a point where we can bring those responsible to justice. >> on the ap situation, what about president picking up the phone and calling eric holder and asking him what happened? >> that would be wholly inappropriate for the president to involve himself in the criminal investigation as jessica points out, at least as reported involves leaks of information from the administration. imagine the story on fox, if that were to happen.

that is why. we have seen from the press reports the information about attempts to seek records from the associated press and we're not involved in those decisions. we can't comment on an ongoing criminal investigation for reasons i think, maybe the question was rhetorical, but i think they are apparent to everyone who has covered these things over the years. >> is it your understanding that no one could have ordered this except for the attorney general? >> it's my understanding that this is something the department of justice does and investigators in the department of justice handle. i believe when it comes to these kinds of things, a decision-making process, but i would refer you to the department of justice who actually made the decision that has been reported. our information only coming from press reports on this. >> if it turns out to be the

attorney general or whoever it turns out to be, will the president have confidence in that person? >> the president has confidence in the attorney general. he has confidence n of his team over the department of justice. i think that -- again, i'm not going to comment on specifics. i think it's important to note as i said earlier, there is a balance that has to be struck between other national security interests and needs to prevent classified information from leaking, classified information that can endanger americans and harm our national security and the president's firm commitment for reporters to pursue investigative journalism. >> and at the same time subpoena phone records? >> i can't comment on specific reports that you cite. i believe the president has said the balance can be sought and can be found.

tats balance. therefore, something we need to constantly work at. you have seen from the past from the measures the president supported as a senator, he believed action should be taken to alter the balance. but i can't comment on the specific investigation for all the obvious reasoning. >> we know what happened the irs admitted what it had done in terms of the tea party and other groups. ap noted the phone records were subpoenaed because the justice department told the ap. the president find any way that may fit in the balance you say? >> it would be inappropriate to comment on the specific investigation and the methods that have been reported. i can tell you that it is important to protect our national security, classified information. it is also in the president's view essential to allow journalists to be able to pursue in an unfettered way pursue

investigative journalism. >> you keep talking about then senator obama as a fact he killed the legislation in october 2009 that made it so that the protections that he supported having judicial review. there was an opportunity for this still to be passed. chuck schumer was supportive of it. >> i think first of all, you are talking about separate pieces of legislation and legislative history that bears more looking into. the president has the same position as he was at senator. i cannot appropriately apply his support for that measure -- >> we wouldn't be having the conversation today. he supported a judicial review to some of this. >> what happened in 2007. >> i'm asking, what happened in

2009. >> the legislative history is more complicated than you present. >> the democrats were in charge. this is 2009, who cares about 2007. we know what he said in 2008 in front of the associated press. he had a chance to still make it happen. the administration says essentially the president changed his position because of certain things because of national security. >> broadly speaking the president does support the ability of journalists in an unfettered way to pursue investigative journalism. he believes we have to find a balance between that goal. >> he believed in 2008 -- a i think you free to ask him the next time he has press conference to ask him about this. the fact is as president, as president he obviously has

responsibilities as commander in chief to ensure that classified information that the nation's secret, highly sensitive information is not leaked because the leaking of that information can endanger individuals as well as our over all national security. >> a third party has to make that decision go as a candidate he believed the point of the press is to be a watchdog of the watchdog a little bit. the judiciary branch is probably the appropriate place for them to make that determination, but you guys will claim classified any administration claims everything is under national security can fall under that. having a third party to make the decision, is it truly going to endanger leaves, is it truly going to do this and make your case in front of the third party. does the president support that for media sources? >> i don't have an answer to

that. the president does support. >> he supported it in 2008? >> he does support prosecute pro texts for the media. he does believe we need to take measures that the media can pursue investigative journalism in an unfettered way, balancing that groel goal with the national security interests we have as a nation. understandably there is a great concern when classified information is leaked that can jeopardize our national security interests or endanger individuals. >> i still don't understand the time line. we had members of congress complaining about it for two years. did it never reach you here at the white house that conservative groups felt they were singled out and targeted? >> i'm sure people were aware of it and knew some of the stories that had been reported about the complaints, but we were not aware of any activity or of any

review conducted by the inspector general until several weeks ago. >> made aware sooner? i don't understand. >> let's just say -- first of all for all the reasons why distance between -- why the irs should not be politicized. there has to be that distance. on the specific question, i want to wait and see what the report says and what we know what the facts are before we commented beyond what the president said yesterday on this matter and before we make any decisions or pronouncements what actions should be taken. you heard the president say what he believed and what he feels what is reported about specific targeting turned out to be true. we need to see what the scope of

it is before we make decisions how to proceed. >> any update -- i know that republican senator bob corker of tennessee says he has been waiting for an explanation on the cash payments from the c.i.a. and cash payments are continuing to karzai, claiming it in afghanistan. and the senator was hoping for an explanation from the president? >> i'm not aware of the president. i have to take the question. the specific story itself involved the c.i.a. and i have to refer you to them. >> jay, you have used this formulation about the president support for unfettered investigative reporting a number of times here. to what extent did he former cooperation professor torn

between that philosophy and the case for, going after leaks? >> i think the appropriate way way to describe it the president believes there needs to be a balance. there is an interest in making sure that classified information that is sensitive is not leaked. because of consequences to national security and individuals. there is also n an interest in ensuring the president can pursue investigative journalism and be unfettered in that pursuit. to the earlier pointed that he was making, the attorney general and director have national intelligence sent a letter to congress expressing the administration's support for media shield legislation.

the position he held as a senator he continues to hold as president. that balance is important. again, without comment on specific reports on specific cases, we have to be mindful of the facts that national security interests are significant and classified information needs to be protected. >> he has no know that a reporter can't be unfettered if a reporter is subjected to a fishing expedition of phone records off his phone? >> broadly speaking i think the president understands a reporter needs to be shielded in a way that he supportive as a senator and supportive as a president. i cannot because of the nature of the question discuss an opinion about reported

developments in the department of justice. >> can you say categoryly kli, no one from the white house or president's political team were involved. but the bulk of the press conference, you say you don't have all the facts. >> i can tell you that as i think i said yesterday, the white house was alerted about this i.g. review and a again topic of it just a few weeks ago >> how can you be categorically certain about it? >> i don't believe. >> are you doing it on good faith? >> yeah, i can tell you that i am not aware of knowing anything about it. it would be obviously -- >> to your direct knowledge of being aware of anyone here? >> you can ask me somebody who works on -- >> but you said categorically.

>> i am certainly not aware of and confident that no one here was involved in this. we found out about just a few weeks ago and when i say we, the white house council's office found out the review being conducted and conclusion by the inspector general. >> what give you the confidence? >> i feel confident in that -- >> the facts. mistake i had at certification you are confident you are the one that actually put it out there. >> again, you heard the president express his view. we're going to wait until we see the facts based on the inspector general's review and make judgments about those facts and what next step might be taken and by whom and what actions might be taken. i'm not going to get into any more details. >> i wanted to follow-up on a

question. this administration and the last four years has prosecuted twice as many leakers as every previous administration combined. how does that reflect out? >> i would say the president was committed to the press's ability to pursue information. to defending the first amendment. he is also has a citizen and commander in chief committed to the proposition that we cannot allow classified information to be -- that can do harm to our national security and endanger individuals to be leaked. that is balance that has to be struck. >> the record the last four years does not suggest balance? >> that is your opinion. >> as all previous administrations combined. it's not close close. >> i understand there is ongoing

investigations that present seeded this investigation. i can tell you what the president's views are. it's the belief that journalists ought to be able to pursue information in an unfettered way backed up by media shield law both as senator and as president. it is also true that a balance needs to be struck between those goals and need to protect classified information. you are not going to hear him say it's okay for the nation's secrets to be freely reported when that information can endanger our national security and do harm to individuals. >> do you think the administration's actions reflect the views you just described? >> i believe the president supports balance. he has made that clear both as president and within his administration. i can't comment on a specific case, but i can tell you what the president believes and what his actions have been in the

past. >> you mentioned that the president has met the goal and balance in the administration. can you describe how he has communicated that within the administration as far as guidance. >> the president, i think i just excited in 2009 a letter to congress from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence ex expressing the administration's support, obama administration's support for media shield legislation. that a clear about the president's view. i can tell that someone who has spent a lot of time. >> megyn: influence have it. number one team of the day. balance that is needed between our national security concerns and freedom of the press but when it comes to the bead of the

irs, i should say of the doj investigating the associated press, he didn't know anything about it. chris is still with us. i said at the top of the hour, it was tough to get, tough to treat this with humor. the whole thing reminds me of a show i used to watch when i was little. it was my with my family well known character and how he would respond when it came to any controversial matter. watch. >> i was not here. i did not make it up this morning! [ laughter ] >> i see nothing. >> megyn: i had to. [ laughter ] >> that is not fair. that is dirty pool to play the sergeant for me. you can't do that. >> megyn: come on, i need a laugh. that is basically, eric who? associated press? irs?

who are they? >> we can't do that because of the walls that exist. and benghazi, it's not political. no, huh? >> i'm personally feeling unfettered after that. i just feel mr. carney a want me to feel fully unfettered as well. >> megyn hogan's heroes. if you have shuttle's you got it all. this is very serious business. the only power greater than taxation, the only power to take people's money away from them the federal government. >> megyn: i'm sorry to do this to you. now eric holder is speaking on the matter. let's go to him. this was a very serious leak and very serious leak. i've been a prosecutor since 1976 and i have to say this is

among, if not the most serious, it's one of the two-top two or three most serious leaks i've ever seen. to put the american people at risk. that is not hyperbole. to put american people at risk trying to determine who is responsible for that required very aggressive action. as i said i'm sure that the subpoena as formulated, behaved on the people that i know, i don't know about the facts -- i think that subpoena was done in performance with doj. was no attempt made to seek cooperation? >> you are getting beyond my knowledge. >> an approach. ordinarily, would protocol you would approach it with voluntary cooperation? >> i don't know what the circumstances are. how things are done has to be

dick at a time by the facts. i frankly don't have knowledge of those facts. >> i think the real question, the underlying question the policy of the administration when it comes to the ability of the media to cover the news. i think the question for you is given the fact that this news organization was not given an opportunity to try to quash this in court as a precedent. it leaves us wondering whether the administration has decided policy wise that if they are going after it? >> i can talk about policy. that is not the policy of this administration. if you will remember, in 2009 when i was going for my confirmation hearings, i testified in favor in the reporter shield law. we actually as an administration took a position in favor of such a law. didn't get the necessary support

up on the hill. that is something this administration still thinks would be appropriate. we've investigated cases on the basis of the facts not as a result of a policy to get the press or to do anything of that nature. the facts of the law have dictated our actions in that regard. >> you said it's not hyperbole it was the underlying investigation run with the knowledge and with the hand of the u.s. government, why is there any risk to americans when the information came out? >> i can't answer that question. >>. >> at the beginning of the investigation, we can get for you exactly. i don't know when that was. as i said it was because was one of the people who had knowledge of this matter. i have frequent contact with the media and try to make sure that this investigation was seen as one that was independent to

avoid the possibility of an appearance of a conflicts. made the determination to recuse myself. >> on the irs controversy, is there a concern on the irs controversy, is there any concern that criminal laws have been prone. if so, have you oweded an investigation? >> i have ordered an investigation to be begun. f.b.i. is coordinate weight justice department to see if any laws were broken in connection with those matters related to the irs. those were, as i think everyone can agree if not criminal they were outrageous and unacceptable. we are examining the facts to see if there were criminal violations. >> are you also recused from the investigation -- >> i'm not going to comment on that. >> with the irs, americans say they don't trust this administration right now. what can you say to them.

>> to the extent that we have determined that government has gone beyond what they were supposed to do broken rules or broken the law, we have prosecuted people. we have held people accountable. we have tried to do things according to certain things. there will be people that won't do so. it is incumbent to hold those people responsible and i think our record over the two and a half years we have done that. >> these regulations require -- doubling in this case, whether a two-month period, is that in your view -- >> the deputy attorney general has written a letter in response to the ap letter. i don't know if it's been made available yet. that has a number of factual

aserghdz in it. it contradicts some of the assertions ma was made by the letter obtained from the ap. i would refer you to that in response to that question. >> the ach story, there are times in administration that civil liberties have not lived up to the promises that you and others made beginning in 2008. looking broadly at this administration's civil liberties record, are you disappointed and why hasn't more been done? >> i'm proud of what we have done. the policies that we put in place with regard to let's say the war on terror, we decided that certain interrogation techniques were not going to be used. we had been i think very aggressive in our enforcement.

civil rights laws. there have been a whole host of things that this administration has done, this justice department in particular that is consistent with what the president campaigned on and what we promised at the beginning of this administration. >> during the last administration, executive orders that continued and what already happened, civil rights laws -- there are so many examples that people are disappointed in this administration both on the left and right. do you need change course? >> no, we're not. this administration has put a real value on the rule of law. values as americans. i think the actions that we have taken are consistent with both. if one looks at dispassionate way what we have done if a whole variety of areas, we, i found

more abundant civil rights division. that is a division that has record numbers of cases, protected record numbers of people. i would take issue with regard to how we have conducted the war on terror with regard to interrogation policy. there were changes made by this administration. a repudiation or opinions that existed when we came into office. so we're talking about, i think, changes that were consistent with, as i set what the president campaigned on and what we a talked about early on. >> there has been some concern with lack of transparency about the drone program. is there more transparency. what are you going to do about that? >> we are in the process of speaking to that. i made a promise that i think will be kept both by me and by the president in a relatively short period of time.

we have a roll out relatively soon. >> the phone records of the ap, the notification phone records internal regulations, they don't speak to those records. based on your briefings that has all come out. can you say whether journalists email records including contents of email records that may be older than six months were accessed as part of this investigation? >> again, you would have to refer to the letter that the deputy attorney general prepared that actually think from what i understand -- i've only seen in it in draft form but it's pretty specific as to times, dates in which things were actually was acquired. >> megyn: what a busy afternoon, folks. just to set the table for you.

>> megyn: then it's outrageous and should be accountability. mine the irs came out and apologized for the behavior. that is why the reporters were asking why the qualifier. we also heard that jay carney trying to did he have the president when it comes to the department of crackdown on the associated press. 9 news is the u.s. attorney and got a subpoena to take a look at all the phone records. about hundred or so reports, at the associated press about a year ago. over a two-month period they

looked at phone records, on home phones, cellphones and office lines and three or different areas, they monitored those numbers. they pursued whatever leads they pur sued because they leaked to the ap about a terror story. it's about doing what they allegedly did. you heard jay carney say that is something for the doj to speak to. the white house didn't know anything about that either. now, we hear eric holder he is confident the department of justice followed the rules in the associated press subpoena in saying he had recused himself from the whole investigation. this kind of spp sp would have required him to sign off. but he recused himself a long time from that whole leak investigation because somebody had questioned him in connection with it. he said, the deputy a.g. is in. once again, i want to bring back

chris to react. he he also commented on the irs investigation saying that was outrageous and unacceptable what the irs and conservative groups if not criminal and he is calling for an internal investigation over that activity. he sort of defends, holder does the ap probe but on the same page as the president whether the irs crossed a bound ri here. perhaps a criminal boundary. let me give you your view on these breaking news matters. >> look, this is pretty simple. the power to take people's money away from them legally, the power of taxation is second only to deprive people of their liberty, put them in prison for a crime, make them go into military or take their lives. this is a huge power we entrust the federal government with. if it is done improperly, people

freak out. they become deeply alarmed when it is done in the wrong way. president if he wishes to get beyond these scandals that are plaguing his administration, the president should be suspending people. he should be lowering the boom now in a previous e preventative measure so to make sure this isn't persisting and the inspector general's report on the basis of on what the agency has apologized for should be enough to start suspending folks and bring the real presidential crackdown. acted in the carney didn't want to do that today was telling. >> megyn: before i let you go it was carney and eric holder, wear talking about how supportive the president has been and eric holder has been of reporter shield laws, the president as a senator and for some time the eric holder i supported the

reporter shield law. we were listening to it. some of my friends are reporters what? subpoena records? and yet the truth is as one of the reporters, president pointed touted jay carney, this administration presidential has brought more leak investigations than all presidents combined. so if you leak something that makes the president look good, maybe you don't get prosecuted. but if you leak something that doesn't make the white house look good you will have eric holder or a deputy call you up or phone calls to a news agency and that is where the criticism lies. there was defensive tone by that today. the facts are the facts. >> the facts are the facts. it's like unfettered investigative journalism. i favor unfettered fishing but

i'm going to take all the fish out of the lake. there is nothing for you to talk and people are afraid to talk. the side effect is to have a chilling effect inside the government that want to talk to reporters. you can tell the fisherman, cast your lines all that you want, but there will be nothing to catch. >> megyn: chris, i'm glad we got your take on it. >> thank you for sergeant shuttle's. >> we have to bring him back.

this is side show driven by political interests and then mr. carney pleaded innocence involving the irs. it's admitted that it has targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny. conservative groups that want a tax exempt status. they have to go to the irs for approval for that. and question about family members that might want to run for office and what conversations and give us your facebook address. all sorts of stuff they had to go through that other people didn't have to go through. they admitted they started a conservative group but they claim it wasn't for political reasons. just a coincidence. we done the know-how it happened. that is why the white house found wiggle room and if they did it and see what the inspector general report when it gets released this week.

members of congress and news reporters apparently have it. then there will be consequences. okay, then there was the matter of the doj going after the associated press. back in associated press wrote an article about a thwarted terror attack. it was controversial because it was scheduled for the anniversary of the ubl kill and the white house denied there was any known chatter or to attack the country on the anniversary of the ubl attack. so the ach runs a story, there was a planned attack but it was thwarted. then came the questions from doj who leaked and who told the associated press that. how did they have that. in order to subpoena a news organization's records as we know happened in this case. u.s. attorney for d.c. did it. he got two months of associated press reporter records, home phones, cellphones, call up your

husband. they know all about it. they know all about it. without ever notifying the associated press. they were among the calls and they did not know in advance. ah, eric holder says, look, i had nothing to do with that, even though the law would require him to sign off on a subpoena like that something called the first amendment, he said i recused myself and that is reportedly because he had been questioned by somebody in the course of the investigation. i'm not going to be involved in. that but his deputy a.g have to sign off on a subpoena. so the doj has their fingerprints about that but eric holder said it was among the worst leaks he had ever seen in his entire career is what he said moments ago. >> i'm not familiar with all that went into the formulation

in the subpoena. i'm confident with the people that were involved in the investigation, i know and woblgd for a great many years filed all the department of justice regulations and did things according to doj rules. >> judge napolitano is or senator judicial analyst. your take on it, judge? >> he has a lot of questions to answer. he shouldn't have been giving the press conference because he recused himself from the case. >> megyn: it was on another matter. >> it just happened to follow jay carney's press conference which he couldn't talk about the ap story. the ap story of government seizing phone records, cell records, home telephone records of reporters is a profound and direct assault on the first amendment. this administration like everybody who works for the government like you and i when

he became lawyers to uphold the constitution that includes the first amendment. there is three ways that can get these records. they can have a grand jury subpoena them. in which case the u.s. attorney who presents the case to the grand jury has to tell the person we are going for your records. they are not --. >> megyn: so we're going to get your phone records to the ap? >> correct. so we're not worried about you destroying them but can challenge the subpoena. >> megyn: they didn't do it? >> correct. or they can go to a judge and get probable cause of a crime and gaet search warrant or they go to verizon's office and get the phone records. >> megyn: there an exception having to tell them when national security would be at risk. they claim, even though the ap was reporting on something that happened months and months earlier. they claimed the ach they were doing that national security

would be at risk? >> here is why they can't have it both ways. the third way they can get these records is national security letter. basically a federal agent writes a search warrant authorizing another federal agent to get the documents under the patriot acted. in view of my view and many judges is unconstitutional but it is the law. when they do that they have to certify it's a matter of national security and they are investigating terrorism. as a plain old-fashioned crime of leaking. >> megyn: we have 30 seconds and we're going to hard break and hard break. i want to get to that, quickly, overbroad, even if they could do it was it done improperly? >> it was absolutely done improperly. any way of the three ways under the law. they violated the most core protected rights under the constitution, freedom of speech. >> you have the president mocking who are afraid of

tyranny in this country. more on the sirs story. nope eeeeh... oh, guys let's leave the deals to hotels.com. ooh that one! nice. got it! oh my gosh this is so cool. awesome! perfect! dad to the rescue. the perfect place is on sale now. up to 30% off. only at hotels.com

not conservative, just a principal. these folks want a tax exempt status, a 501c3 designation, nonpublic private charities. not allowed to engage in

political activity as their main thing, not allowed to endorse or oppose political candidates or donate money or time but they can lobby and support issue based legislation as long as they let the irs know. both sides of the aisle do a ton of it. so there's nothing wrong with it but what is wrong is the irs is targeting these groups for a lot of extra scrutiny just because it had an objection to what they stood for. jay specklo is chief councilor for the american law and justice and his client says his group is among those targeted by the irs when he tried to get status as an educational organization. i tip my hat to you, jay, you and mark levin have been the motivatg forces, complaining on behalf of your clients like kevin to the irs for a long time now. before we had admission, before we had inspector general reports

saying it's so, they've been doing what you said. you smelled a rat. you knew they were up to no good. let me start with you, jay and tell us why and how. >> first of all mark levin's organization, landmark legal, did a great job getting the inspector general report started. he got the report started and he's done a great job and i appreciate what mark's done. i want to pet an end to a myth. this letter is from the washington, d.c. office of the internal revenue service involving one of our clients in albuquerque, signed but not just an agent but a tax law specialist who is a lawyer with the internal revenue service. the notion this is some limited low-level staff -- that's over with. this is out of washington, d.c. the narrative that the administration's putting forward and jay carney keeps talking about, it's not an if, they have apologized for it, which by the way the apology is not accepted.

they apologized so the president needs to start the if and get to the reality that this was a misuse of the office of the internal revenue service, an office i started my career with as a tax lawyer and this is outrageous what our clients have been put through, years of waiting is inappropriate. >> the inspector general's report which we're hoping to get any day now will say senior irs officials knew this was happening as early as 2011. the initial spin from the irs was it was low-level cincinnati employees and nobody knew. nobody at senior levels. now we find out it's not just cincinnati, it's multicities. >> washington, d.c. >> senior irs officials knew and the reports are around may of 2012 that the then commissioner of the irs found out and that the acting -- the guy who is the acting commissioner found out in may of 2012 so they did know for

a year. kevin, how did you first experience this? when the irs messes with you, you have like an inclination, are they messing with me but it gets to another level and you think they're actually messing with me. >> the first indication i had was when i received my first letter from the irs which was in may of 2011. although that was a little more vague than the later letters we got, it was actually by december of 2011 and this dovetails what jay was saying and this is important. i finally got ahold of an agent, and the agent was out of the cincinnati office. i said what is taking so long with my application? and his words to me were, and i quote, he said we have been waiting on guidance from our superiors as to your organization and other similar organizations. i said, and he implied by the way that authority was coming from beyond cincinnati so -- in fact when i apology came out, i

knew this wasn't true. >> megyn: how did it hurt? >> let me count the ways. first of all i'm a large -- i was launching my organization so i got a first-time grant of $30,000 promised to me upon condition i get status. that grant, though not great in volume, is a tool to raise money with other organizations. that grant was then later pulled not because of anything that i had done but because the granting organization decided that they couldn't wait any longer. in addition to that, i invested between 30 and $50,000 of my money, all of which is for naught at this point. >> megyn: i want to ask you, jay, even the attorney general suggests this may be criminal behavior. it's obviously outrageous but they're talking about criminal. i want to pick it up after the break about whether somebody should be behind bars for this behavior, if proven in a court of law. that's next.

if you're suffering from constipation,

miralax or metamucil may take days to work. or faster relief, try dulcolax laxative tablets. dulcolax provides gentle relief overnight unlike miralax and metamucil that can take up to 3 days. for predictable relief try dulcolax. so we brought back what you loved. added new surprises. and now, you've come back to us. we're speechless. except for two little words. ♪ ♪ wonder if i gave an oreo ♪ to somebody out there who i didn't know ♪ ♪ would they laugh after i'd gone? ♪ ♪ or would they pass that wonder on? ♪ ♪ i wonder how it'd change your point of view ♪ ♪ if i gave one to you? ♪

>> megyn: apparently groups who were spotted by the irs for additional scrutiny were asked as many it's a 30 questions, that a regular group, another group, would not have been asked including some reports of tell us any members of your family who plan to be a candidate for public office. detail your organization's involvement with the tea party. none of your business what my involvement is with the tea party. indicate your position regarding every issue important to your organization. tell us the dare -- about the name of -- has a crime been

committed here? >> the attorney general today raised the specter of criminality says it's crowded rages and civil liability. he raised the issue of criminality making me think there's more to it. this was a coordinated attack on these organizations including jewish organizations pro israel in their support. you mentioned it wasn't just tea party type organizations. and the attorney general has raised the specter there could be criminality and that will depend what internally was going on at the time reviews were taking place. this is critical, the white house put out a narrative and so has the irs this was rogueing agents in cincinnati, ohio. i've got a letter from a tax lawyer with the treasury to my client in albuquerque, new mexico and the letter is from out of the irs and it indicated

that higher-ups were reviewing this. but the person who wrote the larry is letter is a lawyer. >> they denied -- they said it was for political reasons but what were they saying when you accused them. >> they've been obnoxious to deal with and i started my career with the agency. they came back with more questions. you mentioned 30. that doesn't include the eight or nine sub parts. copies of every facebook post on your organization's facebook page and your personal facebook page. how about we want a list of your members, your donors, biography and family information of your board of directors. to be frank here, we've had 27 cases pending, two clients withdraw becaus time. ten are still penned, 15 we received but 10 are still pending. we sent a demand letter yesterday to the commissioner of

the internal revenue service as well as the chief counsel and said issue those exemptions by friday or we're taking legal action. >> megyn: that's the question about whether this was their mission, to deter you from pursuing your mission. do you think that was going on here? >> if i could add one critical point about my letter. keep in mind my mission statement is challenge the organization of the rising generation. we mentor high school and college students yet the irs asked us to identify those who we were teaching and to detail the information we were teaching them. a clear violation of my first amendment rights. >> the chairman of the naacp was on a network this morning asked about targeting the tea party but julian bond said it's legitimate to look at the tea party, a group of people who are admittedly racist, overtly political and tried to harm president obama in every way. they're the taliban wing of

american policy politics. this is a group that does get tax exempt at that status. >> and that was the basis upon which the supreme court ruled. they tried the same against the naacp and it didn't work out well for them. it's unfortunate julian bond said that. he's a civil rights leader with a very -- he's misunderstanding the nature of the groups involved and to make statements about membership lists is troubling coming from someone who understand the struggle. >> megyn: he said something about the irs behaved in a heavy-handed manner but he's got to love for the tea party, he believes they're racist, overtly political and the taliban of american politics. i'll leave it at that. thank you. still ahead, we're going to be joined by britt brit hume who

is going to react to this news. we have benghazi and the white house saying this business about the talking points is a side show and everybody's trying to politic size. the irs, has a crime been committed? who's getting fired, anybody? what about the d.o.j. probing into reporters? cell phone calls and home phone calls. think it can't happen to you? brit's next. tony used priceline to book this 4 star hotel. tell 'em why.

free breakfast with express deals, you can save big and find a hotel with free breakfast without bidding. don't you just love those little cereal boxes? priceline savings without the bidding.

>> we've got benghazi, irs, hhs, doj, if you read the articles it sounds like there's a siege going on. is there a siege mentality in the west wing right now? >> megyn: no was the answer. joining me, brit hume. what an afternoon, brit. what an afternoon. what do you make of it? >> the white house briefing room is not a good place to gather information. but it's a good place to judge the media atmosphere and the media atmosphere in washington today is different than it has been for years. you could see that in the silly question by chip reed, obviously the answer is no, carney's not going to say yes. >> megyn: we're feeling that, chip. >> we're paralyzed. my job is to repeat the word

unfettered as often as possible and when i can't think of that, i'll say inappropriate. this is something that is new and this administration has not had to deal with this kind of a firestorm. and i think it shows you what can happen. this isn't over yet on any count. all three stories have information yet to be gleaned and determined and extracted in hearings and public shows that can rivet this town from time to time and there are times the critical mass is reached when even a democratic president, so generally popular with the media, as this one is, can be caught up in it as president obama is. >> megyn: between friday and the one we just watched i'm looking out the window to see pigs fly. what's happened? who are these reporters who have shown up here? for the first 4.5 years of the presidency, fox news has been the one asking tough questions and skeptical of the president. now in the wake of cold hard

evidence that we may have been misled about very important things, it's like they suddenly woke up and said, you know, wait, we have an obligation today american people to ask hard questions. >> exactly. notice today, possibly it's because it was the newest story, the business that came out yesterday about "the associated press" having had its phones monitored, innumber able phones. i don't think there was wire wiretapping. that story may be the least likely to affect the president and the white house because it's true, as jay carney said, the president has an obligation to investigate national security leeks which are a detriment to operations designed to keep the country safe, which is not to say proper procedures and safeguards were observed as apparently not. but that's not the same as the

other two matters. the difference is what what happened with the benghazi talking points, the subject of so much discussion, and what happened with the irs monitoring conservatives or conservative leaning groups, those actions dovetailed with the administration's political interests. it's not at all clear that this business of the ap dovetailed with administration's political interest. >> megyn: you never know because the selective protection of leeks and investigation of leeks under this administration has been more focused on leeks that don't reflect well on the administration. i see your point. i want to ask about benghazi. today there's been pushback, there have been in the initial reports by steve hayes and john karl that ben rhodes, advisor to the white house, suggested the state department's concerns about the cia talking points needed to be resolved. they needed to have a meeting

and concerns needed to be resolved. now someone leaked to jake tapper suggesting ben rose said something far less than they need to be resolved. he said let's get together, we have to have discussion. everyone's points need to be taken into consideration with respect to the investigation. now the white house is using this to say you see, republicans just leaked to these reporters to make this political. and so this is all much ado about nothing. your thoughts? >> the problem is that we -- what we know about the substance of those of various iterations of the talking points is they were converted from true to false and we know, because ben rose is saying everybody's got to get together, that by itself is all right except for the problem that what was the product was something that was misleading and -- i mean terribly misleading in a way

that served to advance the administration's story that terrorism was on the wane and al-qaeda had been defeated, decimated, whatever, and terrorism wasn't a factor in this case. and then of course out of that whole process came susan rice, not only with what she said from talking points but the whole line of bs about the video being involved which was furthered by the president himself and hillary clinton. so this defensive leak that has been put out doesn't resolve that. >> megyn: and then we have the president come out yesterday and tell us straight faced that he's been calling this an act of terrorism, not act of the terror, terrorism, all along. a claim which "the washington post" gave him four pinocchios. >> that's say that true, what the president knew and said the day after it happened or two days, that it was terrorism.

if that's true, why later did he permit susan rice as un embassador to go out and spread this line of bs. was she reprimanded for that? did he correct her? did the white house say we regret to inform you what susan rice said was in disagreement with the president? no. the president expressed all kinds of doubts after that about whether it was terrorism or not so the whole argument doesn't hold water. >> megyn: i have to run, but how much did these three matters impede the president's ability to go anything done in the near future? >> one of the unfortunate consequences is it paralyzes an administration and blocks the agenda. you go into a period of radio silence where you can't get your message out on anything else and that persists until the whole thing dies down, if indeed it ever does. >> megyn: thank you, sir. coming up. former football great, o.j.

simpson heads back to the courthouse where he was convicted. why the juice is on the docket in today's "kelly's court." people join angie's list for all kinds of reasons.

i go to angie's list to gauge whether or not the projects will be done in a timely fashion and within budget. angie's list members can tell you which provider is the best in town. you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare. now that we're expecting, i like the fact that i can go onto angie's list and look for pediatricians. the service providers that i've found on angie's list actually have blown me away.

join today and find out why over 1 million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. only rzr delivers. now's the time to buy during the polaris xp sales event. take your pick of our new limited edition rzrs and get financing as low as 2.99 percent. save even more with rebates up to 500 dollars... or totally customize your new rzr with up to 500 dollars of free polaris accessories.

razor sharp performance is waiting for you during the polaris xp les event. any y weekend hohotel stay,, anywywhere, whenen you bookk a hohotwire hot t rate. the e great weekekend ♪ hotwiwire.com that your mouth is under attack, from food particles and bacteria. try fixodent. it helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it. kel kel "kelly's court" in session. o.j. simpson back in court trying to win his freedom. he's four years into a 33 year prison sentence. he was convicted for his role in the armed robbery of a sports

memorabilia dealer. now he's trying to get a new trial and shot at freedom claiming his former lawyer failed to give him a proper defense. what's happening in court today is incredible to see o.j., by the way. he looks so different. what's happening in court today is the co counsel in his trial in '08 is throwing the lead counsel under the bus in terms of the terrible things yale allegedly did to his client and failed to do. tell us. >> it's amazing because grasso took the stand and yale said you want to be famous? let's try the case. grasso said don't we need experts? yale says we don't have money for experts so grasso is listening to audiotapes of o.j. that a 15-year-old set up for him and his sitting there

listening to audiotapes. there was a financial wean grasso and galanter and yale didn't take it seriously. yale tells me there's a plea bargain. i'm not sure it was communicated to o.j. but o.j.'s going to say, if he takes the stand, i don't t know there was a plea bargain. >> megyn: the co counsel, gabriel grasso, throws galant toe under the bus. cry me a river about the 15-year-old setting up the audio system but the business about not commute indicating a plea offer could be a game-changer, if true. >> that's the key. it's not true. they have a name for what o.j.'s about to do, it's called perjury. to suggest that yale galanter a30-year-old veteran, who is a

friend of mine, is a top attorney and defense work 101 is to communicate pleas to defendants. who is going to say he didn't? o.j. simpson. not a motion for a new trial but a motion for a field trip because that's all he's going to get. >> megyn: one thing he's going to suggest is what he was convicted for in '08 was the murder of nicole brown simpson and ron goldman, that he got off in the criminal trial and what this was about was trying to get justice when many felt justice was not done in the 1995 trial. does that go anywhere? >> unfortunately it doesn't but there's karma. the tenth anniversary of the exoneration of the killing of nicole and ron goldman so that's one of their arguments. first of all, it's before a judge. the judge is not going to look at that. he will dig deep into what was the advice of counsel because. >> megyn: but they're going to

talk about a 33 year sentence for a few minutes in a hotel room where no one got hurt and o.j. will argue, 33 years was about nicole brown simpson, it wasn't about the moment with the sports memorabilia guy. >> good luck proving that. this was a kidnapping, an armed robbery for which he he was sentenced. these motions generically are rarely, if ever, won. when it does happen is when a defense lawyer is willing to fall on the sword for his client and say, you know what? i didn't communicate things to the client, i didn't act appropriately. yale galanter is not falling on the sword. >> o.j. is going to say not only did i not commit this crime but yale told me these are my possessions and as long as i didn't use force, didn't have a gun -- >> o.j.'s going to say that? o.j. simpson? >> there was a conflict of interest and yale told me, upon advice of counsel, you know as a

trial lawyer when all else fails, blame the lawyer. it's before a judge. we'll see. >> mercedes, i didn't know he was going to say that. it is o.j. simpson, the same one who got away with murder, who said he had nothing to do with it. who lied about his involvement in the case for which he's serving the 9 to 33 year sentence. his words have no value to anyone. >> megyn: he's blamed everybody from the moment -- even prior to when she was murder. >> he's looking for the two killers still. >> megyn: this is how he did it. in any event he's been coaching basketball or baseball i think in prison. he looks like he's got a sunglass tan. if you see, it looks like he's spending time outdoors and prison food is very good. yeah, he looks very different. he's put on some weight. >> about 40, 50 pounds. >> megyn: a remarkable transformation.

o.j. simpson fighting for his freedom again. panel, thank you. up next, angelina jolie undergoes a major medical procedure after learning she faced a high risk of breast cancer. while some women might not have made the same decision, it was a prophylactic double mastectomy.

angelina jolie going public with a major decision she made for her children. undergoing a preventive double mastectomy because genetic test revealed she was at high risk of getting breast cancer. this comes as a reigning beauty

queen prepares to have the seem procedure because she has a high risk of breast cancer. >> you don't have the same gene as angelina jolie butow have been diagnosed with a high risk of breast cancer so you have undergone the same double mastectomy. how did you come to the decision? >> my disk was difficult to determine. but my mother was diagnosed with this disease at the age of 2. came back 20 years later in the other breast and she passed away. my grandmother passed away from this disease my grant aunt so i have her red kerr link to cancer. >> how hard is senate you're a beauty queen. >> judged by your looks, and your breasts are part of your body and who you are and your

femininity and sex appeal and so on. >> it was a difficult decision to make. my dad sat my down and i said, why would i want to have the surgery? and he looked at me straight in the face and says i don't want you to be dead like your mom, and i think he needed to be that aggressive with me. at 18 you think you're going to live to be 100 years old but i didn't have the luxury most people have. my mother was diagnosed at age 27. i turn 25 this month. the idea i could be facing the battle of my life is a real and carey proposition, so i saidite rather have the a beautiful life than haven't other people tell me constitutes a body. >> angelina says her mother died at 56 and she was worried about being there to mother her own children and said the procedure can come out beautifully. she got implants and preserved tissues and so on.

i assume you're hoping for the same results. >> it's not a perfectly seamless procedureout i with in an age where key construction is possible and they can make you look almost as good as perfect, sometimes better. i it was a commendable their for her to say she feels just as beautiful as she ever did. >> amen, and all the best of luck to you. we'll be right back. ♪ wireless is limitless.

to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. that was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again, and now i gotta take more pills.

♪ yup another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] this may, buy aleve and help those in need.

[ female announcer ] from meeting customer needs... to meeting patient needs... ♪ to wireless is mitless.s...

>> megyn: i'm exhausted. time for shepard. see you. >> shepard: the gus begins anew. an interesting day at the white house. i about the boss is fit to be tied. there are three major dustups over simultaneous investigations. the first charging of the september 11th attacks in benghazi. the white house spokesman echoed the eed the president's -- that he didn't know about the e-mails. the president calls the story political theater. second, the internal revenue service targeting conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. the president says he found out about the st